>Maybe it's not a question of whether macroevolution can or cannot occur >within the context of RM&NS. Perhaps the question is whether RM&NS >are sufficient cause for macroevolution. To help answer this question, >perhaps you can provide the single most impressive example of >evolutionary change via RM&NS that is well founded in observation and >data.

Cliff:

>RM&NS to me is kind of axiomatic; I look for naturalistic explanation of>natural phenomena, and I accept the logic of natural selection as a valid>explanatory principle. I wouldn't call it a *metaphysical* principle, but >maybe you would. In any case, I accept it.

Yes, it does sound like a metaphysical guide. RM&NS to me is something
that happens, but I am only willing to attribute it as _the_ mechanism
if the evidence indicates it.

>As to impressive examples of evolutionary change, I think the most >impressive in the sense of indisputability are those that show gradual>change in a sequence of fossils, as in the evolution of the modern horse>from little eohippus. Obviously such sequences show only trivial>modifications in morphology. But it takes very little faith to extend the >notion of evolution further, to presume descent where there are>clearly homologous structures.

But what is the evidence that RM&NS was the mechanism behind these
changes?